Altered patterns seen over past two decades.

When discussing global warming, the public eye is mostly directed to global average surface air temperatures, but that’s just one slice of the climate pie. If you haven’t noticed, the ocean is awfully big, and it holds a great deal more heat energy than the atmosphere. In fact, about 90 percent of the energy that’s been added to the climate system by human activities has gone into the ocean.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to monitor that. There are a multitude of measuring stations for surface air temperatures, but our presence in the ocean is limited. With the advent of the Argo array—a fleet of autonomous, drifting floats that measure ocean temperatures—in the early 2000s, our data improved drastically. Still, the uncertainty has historically been greater for deeper waters.

In 2010, researchers identified an imbalance in our global energy arithmetic. If we measure the energy that's being trapped by increasing greenhouse gases, some of it seems to disappear—there wasn’t enough warming in the atmosphere or shallow ocean to account for all that extra energy— and there's been a deficit since 2004. (Though a later study suggested the mismatch might be within the margin of error for the temperature estimates.)

Some expected the “missing energy” would be found in deeper waters, but we didn’t have the data to demonstrate that. Meanwhile, the rapid atmospheric warming trend of the 1990s, boosted by strong El Niños, slowed in the La Niña-ridden 2000s, prompting some to posit that global warming was over and the scientists could all go home.

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters compiles the available measurements of the ocean’s heat content, including information on the deep ocean. The study finds that those deep waters have absorbed a surprising amount of heat—and they are doing so at an increasing rate over the last decade.

The researchers—Magdalena Balmaseda and Erland Källén of the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research—assembled the available data from 1958 to 2009 using a reanalysis model. These models are used to reconstruct global conditions from available measurements. In this case, the reanalysis model focused on the ocean, though atmospheric conditions were also included to complete the picture.

The resulting ocean heat content data shows some interesting features. Drops in ocean heat content coincide with large volcanic eruptions, which pump sunlight-reflecting aerosol particles into the atmosphere for a time. But there’s also a small drop after 1998—a year known for the incredibly strong El Niño that pushed global surface temperature to a (then) high point.

That may seem odd at first blush, but it makes sense if you’re not fixated on the atmosphere. An El Niño involves above-average sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific, and some of that energy is transferred to the atmosphere, which becomes warmer as a result. All that warm water means evaporation, and evaporation means cooling of the ocean, just like sweat cools your skin.

After this period, ocean heat content continued to rise sharply—especially in the deep ocean. The paper states that “recent warming rates of the waters below 700 [meters] appear to be unprecedented” in the record. Supporting some earlier estimates, the data shows about 30 percent of ocean warming after 1998 taking place more than 700 meters down.

While it’s certainly useful to note the extent to which heat energy is accumulating in the climate system, it’s more interesting to ask why the deep ocean has taken such a large share of it recently. It seems to relate to changes in ocean circulation. A 2011 study indicated that La Niñas and a circulation pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation could cause lulls in surface warming while energy is stuffed into the deep ocean. That may be exactly what we’ve experienced over the past decade. When those conditions change, we’ll see the effects in higher surface temperatures.

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles.

Wickwick wrote:

Do most of you think the exact opposite now?

No, because almost nobody ever thought that the world was cooling. The consensus then was that the earth was warming, and it still is.

Question for anyone who IS a climatologist: 30 years ago did the community as a whole believe we were on the precipice of an Ice Age? Do most of you think the exact opposite now?

If the answer is yes to both of those don't you see the disconnect?

No, I don't think it's true that 30 years ago the community believed that. There were a few vocal proponents, ironically some of the same people who later became vocal proponents of the exact opposite. But I think most of the community are more circumspect and cautious than some of the voices that you often hear from in the media, both then and now.

. However, when an entire field that's supposed to deal on time scales of decades or centuries (at least appears to...) pulls an "about face!" within my life time I have a hard time placing a lot of trust in the lot. This is not helped by the fact that I have yet to see numerous "long term" predictions of temperature change be met by reality. If you're not going to do much better than extrapolating on a 5-10 year time span how am I supposed to believe predictions based on those or similar models a century out?

You might want to check out Ars' coverage of the IPCC 1990 coverage which is panning out at 20 years in so far.

You are correct that predictions were pointing at another ice age, but it turns out that we have headed that off. As you are intelligent I'm sure you can see that this has its pluses. I can't imagine an ice age would be that great for the world. On a sidenote the arrival of that second ice age was to take thousands of years (our last one ended 10k years ago) whereas we are measuring warming on the scale of decades/centuries. I'm sure that you can see there is consternation over the RATE of change as opposed to just change.

Edit -- I'm guessing my reference to another ice age is scoring down votes. Not sure why as I believe it is true based on articles I have read here. Here is a link.

"These models are used to reconstruct global conditions from available measurements. In this case, the reanalysis model focused on the ocean, though atmospheric conditions were also included to complete the picture."

The Wikipedia article was also not much help, and sadly I lack your access to the full text of most of the articles that you linked.

What I am trying to get at is if the raw data showed an unclear or uncertain picture as of 2010, and was unable to "obtain closure on the energy budget" (the words of Trentbarth) what does this "reanalysis" model add to the picture? New data? New methods? Both? How does it work?

Also, isn't an alternate explanation to the failure of the oceans and atmosphere to gain the heat required by hypothesized GHG forcings, the idea that perhaps that amount of heat is not in fact being pumped into the atmosphere - that GHG forcings are lower than expected?

It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[4] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[5] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[6][7] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[4] possibly up to 10 million years.[8]

WTF are you talking about? It's plainly obvious you don't understand any of this past a high school education 30 years ago, and yet you presume to share your opinions?

That's kinda exactly my point... I've got a PhD in fluid mechanics and combustion not climatology. Yet, somehow climatologists must communicate their ideas to the public in such a way that people far less technically educated than even myself must make decisions that require sacrifice from themselves to avert some possible future disaster.

Question for anyone who IS a climatologist: 30 years ago did the community as a whole believe we were on the precipice of an Ice Age? Do most of you think the exact opposite now?

If the answer is yes to both of those don't you see the disconnect?

Exactly spot on! We're all supposed to bow down and make huge changes to society and lifestyles because a few eggheads put together some line graphs charting humanly imperceptible changes in the climate. No thanks.

Actually, I probably think they're right at least about the parts they know about. My fear is the "better understanding" they're going to have in another 40 years when they realize that .. no wait! the Ice Age is right around the corner after all!

Enough with this "they were predicting an ice age!!!11!" myth. This was never the case, it's a total straw man and something someone with a doctorate in any field should have enough research skills to look into and subsequently dismiss for themselves in under 5 minutes with the googles.

There was a time magazine article once a couple of decades ago and a few other sensationalist bits and pieces but nothing that had any kind of support what so ever from the scientific community. Before asking the practicing climatologists of the world to do your spade work for you, perhaps you could maybe try and dig up some of the peer reviewed science pointing to a new ice age and at least posit a meaningful question as to how it was overturned so completely by our modern understanding of climate change?

In all honesty, screw this planet. Let it burn. I've stopped caring. I recycle, I drive fuel efficient cars, where possible I walk or bike, I try and be energy conscious where possible, I write my congress critters and ask them to promote a green economy, but for every person I see who cares I'm certain there are two dozen that don't, and at least a handful who still think its a liberal conspiracy. Done. 45 minute showers are back, as is leaving the TV on, no recycling, and I'll drive across the metro on a whim to get the cheaper movie ticket. Fuck it all.

Exactly spot on! We're all supposed to bow down and make huge changes to society and lifestyles because a few eggheads put together some line graphs charting humanly imperceptible changes in the climate. No thanks.

Moderation: flagged for ad hom.

I guess by "a few eggheads", you mean 97% of the world's climatologists. The time of "well, there's some evidence this way and some that way, so who really knows?" is long since over. Go back to burying your heads in the sand with Glen Beck and the others. I just can't believe how fucking stupid you people are.

We're all gonna DIE! ........eventually anyway. But it would be kinda rude to leave a smoking cinder as habitat for our offspring. But at doubling computer capacity every 18 months think of the sims they'll get to play with!

What is the image used as the thumbnail on the front page? I'm guessing it must be deep water currents since they all seem to flow the wrong way or have hot/cold flipped from surface currents.

Correct. Red is the overall surface current movement. Blue is the overall deep water movement. That cartoon is a mainstay of most oceanography courses. Warm surface water reaches the North Sea and cools down, increasing its density. Combined with a physical restriction on water movement, it sinks. The physical barrier is the same reason why the colder deep water rises around Alaska/Kamchatka.

Oceanographers first became able to track water movement, and extrapolate the 'age' of water (how long it has been out of contact with atmosphere) thanks to nuke testing in the Atlantic. Tritium entered the water, and follows the same movement patterns.

What is the image used as the thumbnail on the front page? I'm guessing it must be deep water currents since they all seem to flow the wrong way or have hot/cold flipped from surface currents.

The front page image is a version of the "cartoon" of the ocean conveyer belt concept that ties the surface ocean currents with the thermohaline (deep) circulation. It is widely used but poorly understood because the surface and deep circulation operate at different time scales but that is not depicted with the cartoon. The connection between the surface and the deep is also not as simple as depicted. I could go on, but instead I will direct you to a good site for an introduction to ocean circulation: http://oceanmotion.org/

Nothing wrong with research. But when you try to extract signal from noise when the noise is orders of magnitude larger, you should seriously question your results. Alas too much is treated as far too high a certainty.

How's this for a picture?

If you continue to shit in your own back yard, you should not be surprised when the yard begins to stink or question where the odor comes from. That's not an accident of history, it's deliberate action.

As a race, we've been shitting in our own back yards for over 150 years. We've documented changes in our environment as a result of our said dump taking. While we do not know how deep the stink goes, or the ultimate consequences of living in our own funk, it's not alarmist to predict that living in your own shit is not healthy for you.

We may not understand everything about climate change yet. That's to be expected; it's a young field. But let's not dismiss findings that keep getting verified over and over as "noise," or alarmist. The shit is out there, and it stinks to high heaven.

"These models are used to reconstruct global conditions from available measurements. In this case, the reanalysis model focused on the ocean, though atmospheric conditions were also included to complete the picture."

The Wikipedia article was also not much help, and sadly I lack your access to the full text of most of the articles that you linked.

What I am trying to get at is if the raw data showed an unclear or uncertain picture as of 2010, and was unable to "obtain closure on the energy budget" (the words of Trentbarth) what does this "reanalysis" model add to the picture? New data? New methods? Both? How does it work?

Also, isn't an alternate explanation to the failure of the oceans and atmosphere to gain the heat required by hypothesized GHG forcings, the idea that perhaps that amount of heat is not in fact being pumped into the atmosphere - that GHG forcings are lower than expected?

Wickwick, it's apparent that the "ice age" thing was not really the consensus at the time, but regardless, that whole type of logic is wildly unscientific itself. "Well, people who studied this in the past were wrong, so why should I believe these other people who are saying something different?"

I mean, doctors used to use leaches, why should I believe them now? Astronomers used to believe the sun revolved around the earth, why should I trust any of them now?

This kind of reductionist logic is absurd. I mean, saying that a different group of scientists with different equipment and different methodology were wrong says nothing about modern scientists. The whole point of science is that methods are revised, data is analyzed and bad ideas are scrapped. Not to mention the fairly obvious flaw: you're arguing that global warming isn't happening because the people who believed the earth would get colder were wrong. You don't see the irony in that?

You may not believe in some of the outliers that say oceans will reach Iowa or whatever, but that's understandable. The underlying science, however, is there. And unlike the ice age malarky, it's accepted by 97% of people in the field. Shit, gravity doesn't even have that level of acceptance.

The story begins by saying that measuring ocean temperature is hard and we have only recently understood how to measure it accurately. It then goes on to say that the oceans are warming.

Not really what it said. It's not that we only recently "understood how to measure it accurately," it's that coverage prior to the Argo system was sparser and less accurate. We have data that's somewhat reliable (i.e. with big error bars) for much of the world's oceans going back decades. The data is apparently good enough to perform a reanalysis back to the middle of the last century and get meaningful results.

Quote:

Does any one see the contradiction here?

It's a problem with your understanding, not with the science.

Quote:

Is it any wonder why advocates of viewed by many with even more disdain then cargo cultists?

And i have to say, the proof is that the most related science to climatology, weather prediction, seems to bear my point out. They can't predict shit. They routinely can't tell me to within 10°C what the temperature of my hometown is 8 hours out. They routinely can't tell me what kind of precipitation, if any, my hometown will have 8 hours out.

The fact that you can't differentiate between weather and climate invalidates the entirety of your argument. That's like saying that we can't trust aeronautics because we can't know both the position and velocity of an object with 100% precision.

I can't refute the climate science so I'm going to change the subject and pretend it's relevant. Look at this totally different thing, we can't predict it! Kinda makes you wonder about all that climate science, eh? Eh? If they can't get this totally different thing right, how can we trust them about that other thing? This is a totally legit comparison and not at all a red herring!

WTF are you talking about? It's plainly obvious you don't understand any of this past a high school education 30 years ago, and yet you presume to share your opinions?

That's kinda exactly my point... I've got a PhD in fluid mechanics and combustion not climatology. Yet, somehow climatologists must communicate their ideas to the public in such a way that people far less technically educated than even myself must make decisions that require sacrifice from themselves to avert some possible future disaster.

Question for anyone who IS a climatologist: 30 years ago did the community as a whole believe we were on the precipice of an Ice Age? Do most of you think the exact opposite now?

If the answer is yes to both of those don't you see the disconnect?

The ice age thing wasn't a product of peer reviewed science. It was overblown by "Science News" (not Science, the peer reviewed journal) to create a "good story". And the article in question was making long term predictions from a very small data set. It's no more true now than it was then.

Saying global warming isn't happening because a very small number of scientists thought we were headed for an ice age nearly 40 years ago is akin to saying germs don't exist because we used to think only bad people got sick.

If it's such a monumental issue, the climate change industry needs a PR message that resonates or apathy will continue to grow.

What is this "climate change industry"?

I know there are many powerful interests acting to refute or deny climate change - the existing fuel industry is the major component - but I don't know what this "climate change industry" is meant to be.

Is this one of those "you people" sort of points, where you're just assuming that everyone on one side gets together in meetings to agree a viewpoint before promoting it back out to the world?

If it's such a monumental issue, the climate change industry needs a PR message that resonates or apathy will continue to grow.

What is this "climate change industry"?

I know there are many powerful interests acting to refute or deny climate change - the existing fuel industry is the major component - but I don't know what this "climate change industry" is meant to be.

I think it's a good idea to ignore his point, because after all, it is clear that the tide of public opinion is quickly shifting to the conviction that drastic measures are necessary in the near term to combat the menace of climate change and the dangers it poses to our children and grandchildren...

Oh wait, that's not actually true. So maybe there really is a need to find a better way to approach the public with the problem of climate change. So far we've tried smug lectures by arrogant experts, political agitation by leftist ideologues, and panicked assertions of immediate doom. None of those have worked so far. What's next?

As has already been pointed out, you are conflating climate with weather. Simulating a single satellite's orbit is akin to simulating and predicting weather. Simulating weather is difficult. Simulating climate is somewhat more akin to computing the statistical properties of an entire ensemble of satellites - and such predictions can often be made quite accurately. It gets cited in almost every climate thread at some point and I will cite it again now: This Ars article is an excellent non-technical introduction to climate modeling and why you don't have to be able to predict what the weather is going to be in Pasadena on April 1, 2053 to nevertheless be able to reasonably predict what the climate will be.

What a silly stereotypical remark. Why don't you just come straight out and say their stupid?

While I believe in global warming I also understand why many people are skeptical of global warming as many of the scientists involved in such research have been shown to falsify data. There is also a lot of peer and political pressure put on fellow scientists to take the global warming position. Then you have the hypocrites like Al Gore living a life in stark contrast to the pro-environment one he is always trying to get others to live by. The highly emotional, coercive, divisive, insulting and hypocritical aspect of the debate does nothing to convince others.

While I believe in global warming I also understand why many people are skeptical of global warming as many of the scientists involved in such research have been shown to falsify data.

Such as?

Quote:

There is also a lot of peer and political pressure put on fellow scientists to take the global warming position.

It's actually been the opposite. The burden of evidence was on those making the suggestion that AGW was true, and they had to prove their case with decades of evidence and entire careers devoted to demonstrating the veracity of it. That's how science works. As to "political" pressure, which country are you living in? In the US, political pressure goes the other way. Because our politicians are well-known for their disregard for reality in the name of getting votes and industry bucks.

Quote:

Then you have the hypocrites like Al Gore living a life in stark contrast to the pro-environment one he is always trying to get others to live by.

Exactly spot on! We're all supposed to bow down and make huge changes to society and lifestyles because a few eggheads put together some line graphs charting humanly imperceptible changes in the climate. No thanks.

There will be huge changes anyhow, either those we do ourselves or those we just will have to live with. Changing climate and weather patterns will do enormous harm everywhere and if you not believe this look at such small things like the droughts in the US, which caused $35B in economic damages so far. Having more rain somewhere else on the planet isn't going to help you at all here.

"Imperceptible changes in the climate"? You will be able to percept them perfectly fine sooner or later, I think. The price of disruptions in ecosystems and economies is always high.

1. This indicates that we've vastly underestimated the amount of additional energy that's been added to our planet.

2. As a consequence, we have probably been far too conservative in our estimates and timelines of future climate change.

3. We need to concentrate on this issue and put a solution in place YESTERDAY, if we are to bring back a favourable equilibrium. Even if we do this, our climate is likely going to be increasingly violent for the foreseeable future, so:

4. We need to harden our infrastructure and create fail-safe systems for food and water supplies. Decentralised food production. Flood-proofing.

5. We may just be facing the end of our civilisation. Perhaps we need to concentrate on putting our eggs in more than one basket.

6. Climate deniers are partly responsible for our lack of action. They may find themselves in hot water down the line. Ignorance is no longer acceptable.

If it's such a monumental issue, the climate change industry needs a PR message that resonates or apathy will continue to grow.

What is this "climate change industry"?

I know there are many powerful interests acting to refute or deny climate change - the existing fuel industry is the major component - but I don't know what this "climate change industry" is meant to be.

I think it's a good idea to ignore his point, because after all, it is clear that the tide of public opinion is quickly shifting to the conviction that drastic measures are necessary in the near term to combat the menace of climate change and the dangers it poses to our children and grandchildren...

Oh wait, that's not actually true. So maybe there really is a need to find a better way to approach the public with the problem of climate change. So far we've tried smug lectures by arrogant experts, political agitation by leftist ideologues, and panicked assertions of immediate doom. None of those have worked so far. What's next?

You're over-using adjectives. We've had lectures by experts. Were they smug or arrogant? Hard to say, that's a personal judgement, and clearly you've made yours. "Leftist idealogues?"

Come on.

The point I was making is that there is no central controlling group putting out climate change propaganda. It's the world's climate scientists, and they're not acting in concert because of any affiliation or payments. They're talking as a group because this is what they see in the data.

Talk of a "climate change industry" is trolling, pure and simple.

Yes, the message hasn't sunk in, but that's largely because it's become massively politicised due to the vested interests of a small number of very wealthy people. The changes required won't alter people's lifestyles that much on the ground - that's just fear-mongering - but they are likely to start the shift of power away from coal and oil companies.

The facts are clear enough that action is warranted. We're well beyond the point where it's a sensible wager to bet everything you know on a tiny percentage chance that it's all bad data spruiked by a cabal of scientists for... well, no-one's ever defined a good reason.

It's really fascinating to me how as the evidence continues to pile up, and the results become clearer and clearer, there are still so many people claiming that it's either a hoax or just bad science. I was reading an article a couple of days ago linking the unusually cold spring in Great Britain to Arctic melt. The comments on that article that I saw were about 50% denying the very existence of global warming, calling it a hoax, etc.

Not much different than an indifferent frog in a pot of water...slowly boiling for dinner.

This is a myth, but the metaphor is sound.

Both Heinzmann and Fratscher have performed this experiment and proven that, when heated sufficiently slowly, heat exhaustion kills the frog before it attempts escape. A similar experiment was performed by Edward Scripture in which a vice was slowly tightened on the frog's foot, which was completely crushed without any noticeable distress on the part of the frog. Speaking anecdotally, one need simply get into a shower that's too hot and immediately jump out, then turn it down, climb in, and slowly turn it up and you can bear that earlier high temperature because you didn't jump straight to it; similarly, people die in hot tubs all the time by letting themselves pass out and cook before climbing out. Unfortunately I can find no links to the original material to link here Someone with better German than me might have better luck, as the original work is in German and so might require appropriate search strings in German to turn up anything. Wikipedia's links are broken, though the same sources are cited elsewhere, such as "the straight dope."

Wheels Of Confusion wrote:

gsfprez wrote:

I can't refute the climate science so I'm going to change the subject and pretend it's relevant. Look at this totally different thing, we can't predict it! Kinda makes you wonder about all that climate science, eh? Eh? If they can't get this totally different thing right, how can we trust them about that other thing? This is a totally legit comparison and not at all a red herring!

T,FTFY.

gsfprez wrote:

ScottJohnson wrote:

@gfsprezSo what happens when a planet's greenhouse effect strengthens?

Dunno. I don't have a spare planet or a computer simulation with enough fidelity to tell you.

I do, it's name is Venus. Increasing greenhouse gasses is also the reason that we've averted the ice age we WERE heading towards prior to the industrial revolution, which caused the very abrupt, unprecedented u-turn from cooling that now has us seeing some of the highest global mean temperatures of the last 10k+ years, and still going up.

Flashlight wrote:

dbngshm wrote:

Humans continue to deny, especially the deep south.

What a silly stereotypical remark. Why don't you just come straight out and say their stupid?

Irony FTW

On topic, it's stereotype based in fact: the southern US has a disproportionately high number of creationists, young earth creationists, climate change deniers, extremely religious individuals, and people generally trying to destroy the education system even more than it already is. This is not to say that these people don't live elsewhere as well, but it is true that there are disproportionately more, and more vocal, ones south of the Mason-Dixon line.

The fact that you can't differentiate between weather and climate invalidates the entirety of your argument.

I *can* differentiate between the two, and argued that they were related, but not the same. Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking.

No, my reading comprehension is quite alright. You argued that because we can't predict the weather, it correlates that we can't predict climate change. That you believe this is a coherent and rational stance to take invalidates everything else you said. Your argument is "shit is complex, therefore it's not science". Except that's not how science works. Something being difficult to have a perfect theory for doesn't mean any related science is bunk. As I said, there is still a lot of stuff we don't understand about gravitation when we get down to tiny levels. That doesn't mean that we can't make any predictions at all.